CHAPTER 6
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF HISPANICS OR LATINOS: 1980-2000
CHAPTER 6
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION OF HISPANICS OR LATINOS: 1980-2000
Census 2000 results showed that Hispanics or Latinos (hereafter referred to as Hispanics) already are or are about to become the largest minority group in the United States. About 14.6 million people identified as Hispanic in 1980 (6.4 percent of the total population); this number grew by over 50 percent to 22.4 million people in 1990 (9.0 percent of the total population), and to 35.3 million people (12.5 percent of the total) in 2000.1 Table 6-1 shows the residential segregation indexes for Hispanics for 1980, 1990, and 2000.2 The
dissimilarity, isolation and spatial proximity indexes showed an increase in segregation between 1980 and 2000, and the delta and absolute centralization indexes showed a decrease in segregation. This lack of a consistent pattern is illustrated by Figure 6-1(a-e), except that the isolation index showed an increase throughout its distribution (rightward shift), as did, to a lesser extent, the spatial proximity index. An examination of Figure 6-2b shows that only two of the 123 selected metropolitan areas had a decrease in the isolation of Hispanics between 1980 and 2000. For regions, this mixed pattern persisted for the Northeast and Midwest (see Table 6-2). However, four of the five indexes indicated a decline in the residential segregation of Hispanics in Southern metropolitan areas between 1980 and 2000, while four of the five indexes
indicated an increase in residential segregation in Western metropolitan areas over the same period. While the picture was also mixed for metropolitan areas of 1 million or more and areas of under 500,000 people, for medium-sized metropolitan areas (500,000999,999) three of the five indexes increased, and the other two showed no change. Despite these increases, the medium-sized areas tended to have lower levels of segregation than areas of larger or smaller size. The highest level of residential segregation among Hispanics was in areas with the highest percentage of Hispanics, in some cases substantially higher segregation (note the isolation index particularly). In 2000, the dissimilarity index was 10 percent higher in areas where the population was 17.5 percent Hispanic or more (highest quartile)
1 The ethnicity question was moved ahead of the race question on the 2000 Census because research showed it reduced nonresponse to this item. 2 Using the approach described in Chapter 2 to determine substantive changes as one percent of the index range over three years, the following critical values are used: dissimilarity, 0.006; isolation, 0.008; delta, 0.005; absolute centralization, 0.010; spatial proximity, 0.009.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 77
Table 6-1.
Descriptive Statistics for Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos: 1980, 1990, and 2000
All metropolitan areas (weighted average) 0.502 0.500 0.509 –0.3 1.8 1.5 0.454 0.508 0.552 11.8 8.7 21.5 0.774 0.769 0.764 –0.7 –0.7 –1.4 0.725 0.716 0.689 –1.2 –3.7 –4.9 1.200 1.225 1.232 2.1 0.5 2.7 Selected metropolitan areas Weighted average 0.511 0.508 0.517 –0.6 1.8 1.2 0.477 0.531 0.585 11.4 10.0 22.5 0.778 0.772 0.767 –0.8 –0.6 –1.4 0.731 0.720 0.695 –1.4 –3.5 –4.9 1.210 1.236 1.246 2.1 0.8 3.0 25th percentile 0.425 0.423 0.439 –0.4 3.8 3.3 0.350 0.426 0.486 21.5 14.1 38.7 0.763 0.752 0.755 –1.4 0.3 –1.1 0.698 0.682 0.660 –2.2 –3.2 –5.4 1.112 1.128 1.142 1.4 1.3 2.7 75th percentile 0.573 0.611 0.611 6.6 0.1 6.7 0.604 0.715 0.708 18.3 –0.9 17.2 0.823 0.808 0.793 –1.7 –1.9 –3.6 0.837 0.816 0.801 –2.4 –1.9 –4.3 1.325 1.347 1.350 1.7 0.2 1.9
Index, year, and percent change
Minimum 0.160 0.193 0.175 20.9 –9.6 9.3 0.030 0.029 0.057 –4.5 94.7 86.0 0.440 0.545 0.557 23.9 2.2 26.6 –0.336 –0.310 –0.476 7.7 53.7 –41.9 1.004 1.004 1.009 0.0 0.6 0.6
Median 0.525 0.499 0.513 –5.0 2.7 –2.4 0.496 0.501 0.578 1.1 15.3 16.5 0.792 0.779 0.771 –1.6 –1.1 –2.7 0.788 0.757 0.718 –4.0 –5.1 –8.9 1.218 1.250 1.241 2.6 –0.7 2.0
Maximum 0.690 0.744 0.754 7.7 1.4 9.3 0.925 0.946 0.952 2.3 0.6 2.8 0.963 0.942 0.950 –2.2 0.9 –1.4 0.954 0.950 0.934 –0.4 –1.7 –2.1 1.635 1.426 1.459 –12.8 2.3 –10.8
Dissimilarity Index 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent change 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isolation Index 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent change 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delta Index 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent change 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Absolute Centralization Index 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent change 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Proximity Index 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent change 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Note: Selected metropolitan areas (123 of 330) are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the Hispanic/Latino population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
78 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 6-1a.
Distribution of Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000
Number of metropolitan areas 50
1980 1990 2000
40
30
20
10
0
<0
0- .05- .10- .15- .20- .25- .30- .35- .40- .45- .50- .55- .60- .65- .70- .75- .80- .85- .90- .95- 1<= .049 .099 .149 .199 .249 .299 .349 .399 .449 .499 .549 .599 .649 .699 .749 .799 .849 .899 .949 .999
Dissimilarity index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Figure 6-1b.
Distribution of Isolation Index for Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000
Number of metropolitan areas 50
1980 1990 2000
40
30
20
10
0
<0
0- .05- .10- .15- .20- .25- .30- .35- .40- .45- .50- .55- .60- .65- .70- .75- .80- .85- .90- .95- 1<= .049 .099 .149 .199 .249 .299 .349 .399 .449 .499 .549 .599 .649 .699 .749 .799 .849 .899 .949 .999
Isolation index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 79
Figure 6-1c.
Distribution of Delta Index for Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000
Number of metropolitan areas 50
1980 1990 2000
40
30
20
10
0
<0
0- .05- .10- .15- .20- .25- .30- .35- .40- .45- .50- .55- .60- .65- .70- .75- .80- .85- .90- .95- 1<= .049 .099 .149 .199 .249 .299 .349 .399 .449 .499 .549 .599 .649 .699 .749 .799 .849 .899 .949 .999
Delta index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Figure 6-1d.
Distribution of Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000
Number of metropolitan areas 50
1980 1990 2000
40
30
20
10
0
<0
0- .05- .10- .15- .20- .25- .30- .35- .40- .45- .50- .55- .60- .65- .70- .75- .80- .85- .90- .95- 1<= .049 .099 .149 .199 .249 .299 .349 .399 .449 .499 .549 .599 .649 .699 .749 .799 .849 .899 .949 .999
Absolute centralization index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
80 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 6-1e.
Distribution of Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics: 1980, 1990, and 2000
Number of metropolitan areas 50
1980 1990 2000
40
30
20
10
0
<1 11.05- 1.10- 1.15- 1.20- 1.25- 1.30- 1.35- 1.40- 1.45- 1.50- 1.55- 1.60- 1.65- 1.70- 1.75- 1.80- 1.85- 1.90- 1.951.049 1.099 1.149 1.199 1.249 1.299 1.349 1.399 1.449 1.499 1.549 1.599 1.649 1.699 1.749 1.799 1.849 1.899 1.949 1.999 2<=
Spatial proximity index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Figure 6-2a.
Dissimilarity Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2000 dissimilarity index
1980 dissimilarity index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 81
Figure 6-2b.
Isolation Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2000 isolation index
1980 isolation index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Figure 6-2c.
Delta Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980
2000 delta index
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 1980 delta index
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
82 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 6-2d.
Absolute Centralization Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.4 2000 absolute centralization index
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1980 absolute centralization index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
Figure 6-2e.
Spatial Proximity Index for Hispanics for Selected Metropolitan Areas: 2000 by 1980
2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2000 spatial proximity index
1980 spatial proximity index
Note: Selected metropolitan areas are those with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. The reference group is White non-Hispanic. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of race and Hispanic origin definitions. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 1, 1980, 1990, and 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 83
than in areas that were under 3.9 percent Hispanic (lowest quartile). When we compared the same group of metropolitan areas for the other indexes, the same pattern emerged — the isolation index was 147 percent higher, the delta index was 3 percent higher, the absolute centralization index was 1 percent higher, and the spatial proximity index was 11 percent higher. With a few minor exceptions, the increase in segregation was monotonic from the under 3.9 percent category to the 3.9 to 7.3 percent category, to
the 7.3 to 17.5 percent category, and to the highest quartile. Metropolitan areas with the largest increases (over 213.9 percent) in Hispanic or Latino population between 1980 and 2000 generally experienced larger increases in segregation than metropolitan areas with relatively small increases in the Hispanic or Latino population. The highest quartile was also the only one which experienced increases in all five dimensions of segregation over the 20-year period. In contrast, metropolitan areas
with the smallest increases in the Hispanic or Latino population experienced decreases in three of the five indexes and increases in the other two. Table 6-3 gives the distribution of percent change in each index by decade. This table also confirms the findings described earlier. The isolation and spatial proximity indexes increased over the 19802000 period, the absolute centralization index showed a possible decrease, and the other two
Table 6-2.
Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos by Characteristics of Selected Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000
(Weighted averages)
Characteristic
Number of metropolitan areas
Dissimilarity index
Isolation index
Delta index
Absolute centralization index 1980 1990 2000
Spatial proximity index 1980 1990 2000
1.246 1.290 1.328 1.182 1.261 1.278 1.204 1.154
1980
1990
2000
1980
1990
2000
1980
1990
2000
Selected metropolitan areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Region Northeast . . . . . . . . . . Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . South . . . . . . . . . . . . . West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population Size 1 Million or more . . . . 500,000-999,999 . . . . Under 500,000. . . . . . Percent Hispanic/ Latino (Quartiles) Under 3.9 percent . . . 3.9-7.3 percent . . . . . 7.3-17.5 percent . . . . Over 17.5 percent . . . Percent Change (1980-2000) Hispanic/Latino (Quartiles) Under 100.4 percent . 100.4-148.2 percent . 148.2-213.9 percent . Over 213.9 percent . .
123 0.511 0.508 0.517 0.477 0.531 0.585 0.778 0.772 0.767 0.731 0.720 0.695 1.210 1.236 22 13 38 50 0.616 0.571 0.479 0.477 0.612 0.560 0.456 0.494 0.615 0.567 0.461 0.514 0.497 0.336 0.547 0.449 0.543 0.384 0.563 0.529 0.578 0.449 0.601 0.597 0.792 0.779 0.770 0.777 0.773 0.786 0.759 0.777 0.757 0.765 0.736 0.791 0.721 0.736 0.744 0.726 0.693 0.744 0.741 0.715 0.666 0.710 0.706 0.695 1.196 1.226 1.203 1.218 1.246 1.307 1.186 1.252
36 0.540 0.541 0.552 0.478 0.545 0.600 0.788 0.781 0.774 0.774 0.757 0.729 1.236 1.268 16 0.466 0.442 0.463 0.372 0.399 0.468 0.748 0.743 0.744 0.611 0.622 0.624 1.147 1.168 71 0.432 0.416 0.421 0.521 0.543 0.589 0.759 0.749 0.756 0.630 0.629 0.609 1.150 1.150
31 31 31 30
0.437 0.477 0.474 0.541
0.444 0.472 0.480 0.535
0.483 0.476 0.517 0.532
0.153 0.255 0.348 0.601
0.207 0.302 0.421 0.662
0.291 0.372 0.524 0.718
0.751 0.726 0.773 0.791
0.754 0.728 0.776 0.779
0.751 0.722 0.777 0.774
0.719 0.599 0.720 0.755
0.719 0.610 0.713 0.741
0.706 0.594 0.698 0.711
1.058 1.093 1.172 1.261
1.094 1.137 1.220 1.278
1.144 1.180 1.268 1.266
30 31 32 30
0.546 0.537 0.457 0.413
0.539 0.546 0.473 0.408
0.538 0.546 0.506 0.461
0.559 0.536 0.335 0.264
0.603 0.625 0.419 0.320
0.647 0.677 0.516 0.435
0.791 0.779 0.743 0.793
0.778 0.771 0.741 0.801
0.759 0.766 0.743 0.801
0.740 0.741 0.691 0.729
0.727 0.723 0.668 0.765
0.698 0.682 0.646 0.759
1.216 1.268 1.142 1.098
1.240 1.302 1.195 1.115
1.249 1.286 1.248 1.179
Note: Includes 123 metropolitan areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Characteristics of metropolitan areas as of 1980. Segregation estimates are weighted by the size of the Hispanic/Latino population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
84 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
indexes did not change much, on average. Table 6-4 displays 36 large (1 million or more) metropolitan areas with 3 percent, or 20,000 or more, Hispanics in 1980. In terms of the most commonly used residential segregation index — dissimilarity — the five most segregated metropolitan areas for Hispanics were, in order: Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, New York, Newark, Hartford, and Los Angeles-Long Beach. When the other four indexes are taken into account, and the ranks averaged across the five
indexes, the five most segregated metropolitan areas for Hispanics in 2000 were, in order, New York, Providence-Fall River-Warwick, Phoenix-Mesa, Los Angeles-Long Beach, and Chicago and Newark (tied). The top ten were rounded out by Denver, Riverside-San Bernardino and Houston (tied), and five others that were roughly tied for tenth. Figure 6-3 presents the settlement patterns for Hispanics in New York in 2000. While New York has been the most segregated large metropolitan area for Hispanics since 1980,
Providence has risen from 27th of 36 in 1980 to 10th in 1990, and to 2nd most segregated in 2000. Miami moved in the other direction, from 3rd most segregated in 1980, to 4th in 1990, and to 17th in 2000. The five least segregated metropolitan areas for Hispanics, based on the dissimilarity index, were, in order: St. Louis, Seattle-BellevueEverett, Fort Lauderdale, PortlandVancouver, and Baltimore. Using all five indexes averaged, the five least segregated metropolitan areas for Hispanics were, in order:
Table 6-3.
Distribution of Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos: 1980-2000
Dissimilarity index Time period change Number 1980-1990 Increase of 5 percent or more . . Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . Change of less than 1 percent . Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . Decrease of 5 percent or more . 1990-2000 Increase of 5 percent or more . . Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . Change of less than 1 percent . Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . Decrease of 5 percent or more . 1980-2000 Increase of 5 percent or more . . Increase of 1-4.99 percent . . . . . Change of less than 1 percent . Decrease of 1-4.99 percent . . . . Decrease of 5 percent or more . 30 16 8 25 44 55 24 6 23 15 52 9 9 20 33 Percent 24 13 7 20 36 45 20 5 19 12 42 7 7 16 27 Number 96 12 4 7 4 108 9 4 0 2 114 6 1 0 2 Percent 78 10 3 6 3 88 7 3 0 2 93 5 1 0 2 Number 7 37 28 41 10 10 30 30 48 5 22 29 18 31 23 Percent 6 30 23 33 8 8 24 24 39 4 18 24 15 25 19 Isolation index Delta index Absolute centralization index Number 17 24 25 36 21 15 12 19 43 34 23 14 9 27 50 Percent 14 20 20 29 17 12 10 15 35 28 19 11 7 22 41 Spatial proximity index Number 18 46 43 14 2 32 52 33 4 2 56 35 20 7 5 Percent 15 37 35 11 2 26 42 27 3 2 46 28 16 6 4
Note: Includes 123 Metropolitan Areas with at least 10 tracts and 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos in 1980. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 85
Table 6-4.
Residential Segregation for Hispanics or Latinos in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000
Dissimilarity index MSA/PMSA name 1980
Atlanta, GA MSA . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD PMSA . . . . . Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA. Boston, MA-NH PMSA . . . . Chicago, IL PMSA . . . . . . . Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA. . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX PMSA . . . . . . . . Denver, CO PMSA . . . . . . . Detroit, MI PMSA . . . . . . . . Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA . Hartford, CT MSA . . . . . . . . Houston, TX PMSA . . . . . . Kansas City, MO-KS MSA . Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miami, FL PMSA. . . . . . . . . Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA . . . . . . . . . . . Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA . New Orleans, LA MSA . . . . New York, NY PMSA . . . . . Newark, NJ PMSA . . . . . . . Oakland, CA PMSA . . . . . . Orange County, CA PMSA . Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA . Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA . . . Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA . . . . . . . . . Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, RI-MA MSA . . . . Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO-IL MSA. . . . . San Antonio, TX MSA. . . . . San Diego, CA MSA . . . . . . San Francisco, CA PMSA. . San Jose, CA PMSA . . . . . Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA. . . . . . . . . . . . . Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA . . . . . 0.299 0.326 0.609 0.553 0.635 0.575 0.485 0.488 0.413 0.262 0.663 0.499 0.404 0.573 0.525 0.550 0.364 0.371 0.265 0.652 0.669 0.365 0.425 0.628 0.522 0.208 0.497 0.381 0.264 0.575 0.418 0.455 0.452 0.191 0.498 0.322
86 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
Isolation index
Delta index
Absolute centralization index 2000 rank
31 32 28 18 20 24 19 4 33 29 21 25 9 22 17 15 12 36 5 11 7 30 34 26 2 10 3 1 27 23 6 13 16 14 35 8
Spatial proximity index Average 2000 rank
25.2 33.2 18.0 17.4 11.4 24.0 13.2 12.0 27.0 29.6 15.4 12.4 19.6 10.6 16.8 14.8 20.4 28.8 21.4 5.8 11.4 24.8 18.0 15.0 9.8 23.4 9.6 12.4 30.2 13.4 16.0 17.2 15.2 26.8 28.6 17.2
1990
0.349 0.301 0.588 0.547 0.619 0.575 0.498 0.465 0.398 0.259 0.659 0.494 0.394 0.611 0.503 0.564 0.355 0.423 0.314 0.656 0.669 0.388 0.499 0.623 0.486 0.256 0.614 0.358 0.229 0.535 0.453 0.498 0.478 0.207 0.453 0.423
2000
0.511 0.358 0.578 0.587 0.611 0.577 0.537 0.500 0.456 0.310 0.634 0.551 0.455 0.631 0.439 0.595 0.465 0.469 0.358 0.667 0.650 0.469 0.551 0.601 0.521 0.343 0.676 0.425 0.273 0.507 0.506 0.535 0.513 0.303 0.444 0.480
2000 rank
18 32 10 9 6 11 14 21 26 34 4 12 27 5 29 8 25 24 31 2 3 23 13 7 16 33 1 30 36 19 20 15 17 35 28 22
1980
0.063 0.062 0.396 0.219 0.437 0.162 0.311 0.323 0.105 0.080 0.383 0.425 0.129 0.603 0.625 0.190 0.050 0.134 0.104 0.604 0.408 0.250 0.350 0.351 0.390 0.030 0.114 0.358 0.046 0.699 0.345 0.309 0.378 0.031 0.220 0.097
1990
0.088 0.045 0.475 0.264 0.487 0.183 0.406 0.338 0.128 0.141 0.444 0.492 0.135 0.715 0.734 0.266 0.057 0.221 0.123 0.665 0.481 0.333 0.501 0.426 0.404 0.065 0.283 0.427 0.029 0.688 0.436 0.411 0.471 0.047 0.215 0.222
2000
0.297 0.075 0.528 0.330 0.550 0.218 0.546 0.434 0.244 0.306 0.447 0.618 0.229 0.781 0.791 0.396 0.158 0.340 0.147 0.708 0.534 0.486 0.612 0.429 0.511 0.158 0.429 0.578 0.057 0.704 0.543 0.497 0.570 0.112 0.278 0.338
2000 rank
26 35 13 24 9 30 10 18 28 25 17 5 29 2 1 21 31 22 33 3 12 16 6 20 14 32 19 7 36 4 11 15 8 34 27 23
1980
0.652 0.652 0.732 0.759 0.792 0.786 0.781 0.870 0.690 0.440 0.816 0.797 0.791 0.778 0.809 0.793 0.788 0.569 0.817 0.829 0.847 0.697 0.643 0.769 0.859 0.727 0.783 0.879 0.737 0.811 0.806 0.793 0.732 0.787 0.666 0.792
1990
0.667 0.651 0.723 0.764 0.803 0.781 0.788 0.857 0.669 0.685 0.804 0.779 0.811 0.771 0.798 0.794 0.799 0.587 0.827 0.808 0.826 0.691 0.652 0.752 0.857 0.736 0.829 0.868 0.723 0.804 0.804 0.793 0.769 0.785 0.622 0.810
2000
0.673 0.666 0.710 0.779 0.774 0.768 0.777 0.844 0.662 0.693 0.772 0.755 0.802 0.770 0.780 0.786 0.792 0.597 0.827 0.793 0.808 0.689 0.648 0.744 0.866 0.800 0.851 0.879 0.716 0.769 0.819 0.790 0.782 0.786 0.621 0.802
1980
0.734 0.606 0.676 0.761 0.749 0.613 0.793 0.914 0.679 0.264 0.745 0.851 0.834 0.788 0.855 0.749 0.852 0.385 0.859 0.837 0.606 0.349 0.642 0.765 0.818 0.756 0.684 0.802 0.782 0.827 0.706 0.801 0.704 0.797 0.716 0.846
1990
0.737 0.615 0.653 0.746 0.764 0.618 0.816 0.897 0.651 0.705 0.731 0.813 0.842 0.757 0.820 0.744 0.857 0.369 0.864 0.816 0.572 0.341 0.594 0.757 0.849 0.747 0.785 0.830 0.755 0.810 0.682 0.764 0.707 0.755 0.623 0.842
2000
0.703 0.589 0.629 0.749 0.715 0.613 0.801 0.881 0.627 0.612 0.678 0.780 0.848 0.718 0.772 0.708 0.854 0.350 0.846 0.812 0.545 0.292 0.533 0.727 0.861 0.785 0.777 0.835 0.736 0.769 0.660 0.716 0.699 0.733 0.597 0.805
2000 rank
23 32 27 15 21 29 9 1 28 30 25 11 4 19 13 22 3 35 5 7 33 36 34 18 2 10 12 6 16 14 26 20 24 17 31 8
1980
1.006 1.011 1.152 1.077 1.325 1.063 1.119 1.146 1.047 1.010 1.174 1.218 1.032 1.344 1.290 1.072 1.015 1.033 1.024 1.244 1.183 1.066 1.163 1.183 1.163 1.006 1.032 1.119 1.004 1.382 1.112 1.112 1.180 1.004 1.098 1.027
1990
1.016 1.012 1.232 1.109 1.426 1.095 1.172 1.162 1.063 1.016 1.287 1.229 1.035 1.379 1.250 1.143 1.018 1.064 1.026 1.299 1.309 1.100 1.317 1.290 1.172 1.017 1.122 1.128 1.004 1.347 1.166 1.134 1.233 1.007 1.126 1.082
2000
1.104 1.017 1.279 1.160 1.423 1.126 1.256 1.215 1.169 1.071 1.295 1.307 1.083 1.350 1.142 1.333 1.066 1.123 1.033 1.347 1.384 1.185 1.374 1.365 1.225 1.043 1.271 1.204 1.011 1.342 1.213 1.145 1.291 1.025 1.150 1.140
2000 rank
28 35 12 21 1 26 14 16 20 30 10 9 29 5 24 8 31 27 33 6 2 19 3 4 15 32 13 18 36 7 17 23 11 34 22 25
Rank of averaged 2000 ranks
29 36 21 20 5 27 10 7 31 34 15 8 23 4 17 12 24 33 25 1 5 28 21 13 3 26 2 8 35 11 16 18 14 30 32 18
Washington, DC-MDVA-WV PMSA. . . . . . . . . .
Note: Includes 36 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.
Figure 6-3.
The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics or Latinos in 2000: New York, NY PMSA
Census Tract County State Hispanic or Latino White, non-Hispanic 1 Dot = 400 People 5 0 10 Kilometers Miles 5 10 0
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.
N
Fairfield
Orange West tchester tcheste er
CO
NN
T EC
IC
UT
Passaic
NE
W
JER SE
Y
Bergen
Suffolk Essex Nassau
Union
Y
Middlesex Richmond
Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau
See Inset, Figure 6-3a.
Selection criteria of the most segregated MA is based on the universe of 36 metropolitan areas with at least 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1 million or more total population in 1980.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 87
Figure 6-3a.
The Most Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics or Latinos in 2000: New York, NY PMSA (inset)
Passaic
Bergen Westchester
JER SEY NE W
Bronx Nassau Essex
Hudson
New Yor Union Quee
Kings
Richmond
Census Tract County State Hispanic or Latino White, non-Hispanic 1 Dot = 400 People
0 2 4 Kilometers Miles 0 2 4
N
Selection criteria of the most segregated MA is based on the universe of 36 metropolitan areas with at least 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1 million or more total population in 1980. Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.
88 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
Baltimore; St. Louis; Fort Lauderdale; Nassau-Suffolk; and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (Detroit is roughly tied with Nassau-Suffolk and TampaSt. Petersburg). Figure 6-4 presents the settlement pattern for Hispanics in Baltimore in 2000. Table 6-5 presents the changes by decade in the 1980 and 2000 period for these large metropolitan areas. Those showing the largest percentage declines (or smallest increases) in residential segregation of Hispanics over the 1980-2000 period (averaging ranks across the five indexes) were, in order: San Antonio, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Miami, Hartford, and St. Louis. The five large metropolitan areas showing the smallest percentage declines (largest increases) were, in order: Providence-Fall River-Warwick, Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale and Portland-Vancouver (tied), and Washington.
Not only was Providence-Fall River-Warwick one of the most segregated large metropolitan areas for Hispanics in 2000, it was also the metropolitan area with the largest percentage increase over the 1980-2000 period when all 123 selected areas (areas with 20,000 or 3 percent or more Hispanics in 1980) were considered. The other four with the largest increases were Fort Lauderdale, Las Vegas, Santa Rosa, and Richland-Kennewick-Pasco. In contrast to Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, Fort Lauderdale was one of the least segregated large areas in 2000. Of the five metropolitan areas showing the largest percentage decrease, based on the ranks of all selected metropolitan areas in residential segregation over the 19802000 period, four were in Texas: El Paso; Odessa-Midland; San Antonio; Jersey City, NJ; and Laredo (tied). Of the next five,
another was in North Carolina (Fayettville), another two were also in the South (Miami FL and Galveston-Texas City TX), and two were in the Midwest (Gary IN and Saginaw-Bay City-Midland MI). Overall, the residential segregation picture for Hispanics in the United States is mixed, with increases slightly outnumbering declines when all measures are considered. There was some slight evidence of declines in segregation in the South, but increases for mediumsized metropolitan areas, and increases in metropolitan areas with large percentages of Hispanics. While New York continued to be the most segregated large metropolitan area for Hispanics, as it had been for two decades, several areas showed significant changes — ProvidenceFall River-Warwick, for example, became much more segregated and Miami much less so.
U.S. Census Bureau
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 89
90 Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000
U.S. Census Bureau
The Least Segregated Large Metropolitan Area for Hispanics or Latinos in 2000: Baltimore, MD PMSA
Figure 6-4.
Prepared by Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau
PENNSYLVANIA
ar l arroll Baltimor
Cecil
DELAWARE
Frederick
K
Montgomery
ltimore ty)
Census Tract County or Statistical Equivalent State Hispanic or Latino N White, non-Hispanic 1 Dot = 200 People
0 5 10 Kilometers 5 Miles 10
Prince George's
Caroline albot
0
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) boundaries and names are those defined by the Federal Office of Management and Budget on June 30, 1999. All other boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2000.
Selection criteria of the least segregated MA is based on the universe of 36 metropolitan areas with at least 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1 million or more total population in 1980.
Table 6-5.
U.S. Census Bureau
Percent Change in Residential Segregation Indexes for Hispanics or Latinos in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980-2000
Dissimilarity index MSA/PMSA name 19801990 percent change . . . . . 16.7 –7.5 –3.5 –1.0 –2.6 0.0 2.7 –4.7 –3.8 –1.2 –0.6 –1.0 –2.5 6.6 –4.2 2.4 –2.5 13.8 18.3 0.7 0.0 6.4 17.4 –0.8 –6.8 23.2 23.5 –6.0 –13.2 –7.0 8.3 9.4 5.9 8.0 –9.1 31.3 19902000 percent change 46.5 18.7 –1.7 7.3 –1.2 0.5 7.8 7.6 14.6 19.5 –3.8 11.6 15.4 3.3 –12.7 5.6 31.0 10.9 14.2 1.6 –2.9 20.8 10.4 –3.6 7.2 33.6 10.1 18.5 19.6 –5.1 11.8 7.3 7.2 46.3 –1.9 13.3 1980-2000 Percent change Rank 71.0 9.8 –5.2 6.2 –3.8 0.5 10.7 2.5 10.3 18.1 –4.4 10.5 12.5 10.2 –16.4 8.2 27.8 26.2 35.1 2.3 –2.9 28.5 29.6 –4.4 –0.1 64.7 36.0 11.4 3.7 –11.8 21.0 17.4 13.5 58.0 –10.8 48.8 1 21 33 23 30 27 17 25 19 12 32 18 15 20 36 22 9 10 6 26 29 8 7 31 28 2 5 16 24 35 11 13 14 3 34 4 19801990 percent change 39.8 –26.8 20.0 20.7 11.4 13.3 30.7 4.8 22.4 76.3 15.9 16.0 4.6 18.7 17.4 39.7 14.0 65.0 18.3 10.1 17.9 33.2 43.0 21.3 3.6 113.0 148.4 19.5 –36.6 –1.5 26.5 32.9 24.4 49.3 –2.2 129.2 Isolation index 19902000 percent change 236.2 65.7 11.2 24.9 13.0 19.3 34.4 28.3 90.9 117.5 0.6 25.4 69.3 9.2 7.8 49.0 178.6 53.7 18.9 6.5 11.0 46.0 22.1 0.7 26.6 143.1 51.4 35.2 94.7 2.4 24.4 20.8 21.0 138.0 29.2 52.1 1980-2000 Percent change Rank 370.1 21.2 33.3 50.8 25.9 35.1 75.7 34.5 133.6 283.4 16.7 45.4 77.1 29.6 26.6 108.2 217.6 153.5 40.7 17.2 30.8 94.5 74.5 22.2 31.1 417.9 276.1 61.5 23.5 0.8 57.4 60.5 50.6 255.4 26.3 248.7 2 33 24 18 30 22 13 23 9 3 35 20 12 27 28 10 7 8 21 34 26 11 14 32 25 1 4 15 31 36 17 16 19 5 29 6 19801990 percent change 2.3 –0.2 –1.2 0.6 1.3 –0.6 0.9 –1.5 –3.2 55.7 –1.5 –2.2 2.5 –0.9 –1.3 0.1 1.4 3.1 1.3 –2.5 –2.4 –0.9 1.4 –2.2 –0.2 1.2 5.9 –1.2 –2.0 –0.9 –0.3 0.0 5.0 –0.2 –6.7 2.2 Delta index 19902000 percent change 0.8 2.4 –1.8 1.9 –3.6 –1.6 –1.4 –1.5 –1.0 1.2 –3.9 –3.1 –1.1 –0.2 –2.3 –1.0 –0.9 1.7 0.0 –1.9 –2.2 –0.2 –0.6 –1.1 1.0 8.7 2.6 1.2 –1.0 –4.3 1.9 –0.4 1.8 0.1 –0.1 –0.9 1980-2000 Percent change Rank 3.2 2.1 –3.0 2.6 –2.3 –2.2 –0.5 –3.0 –4.1 57.5 –5.3 –5.2 1.4 –1.1 –3.6 –0.9 0.5 4.9 1.3 –4.3 –4.5 –1.1 0.8 –3.2 0.9 10.0 8.7 0.0 –2.9 –5.2 1.6 –0.5 6.9 –0.1 –6.8 1.2 6 8 27 7 24 23 19 26 30 1 35 34 10 21 29 20 15 5 11 31 32 22 14 28 13 2 3 16 25 33 9 18 4 17 36 12 Absolute centralization index 19801990 percent change 0.4 1.5 –3.4 –2.1 2.0 0.7 2.9 –1.9 –4.1 167.4 –1.9 –4.5 0.9 –4.0 –4.1 –0.6 0.5 –4.1 0.5 –2.4 –5.7 –2.3 –7.4 –0.9 3.8 –1.2 14.7 3.4 –3.6 –2.0 –3.3 –4.5 0.4 –5.3 –13.0 –0.5 19902000 percent change –4.6 –4.3 –3.7 0.4 –6.4 –0.7 –1.8 –1.8 –3.8 –13.2 –7.2 –4.0 0.6 –5.1 –5.8 –4.8 –0.3 –5.1 –2.1 –0.6 –4.6 –14.3 –10.3 –4.1 1.4 5.1 –1.0 0.7 –2.5 –5.0 –3.2 –6.4 –1.2 –2.9 –4.2 –4.3 1980-2000 Percent change Rank –4.2 –2.8 –6.9 –1.6 –4.5 0.0 1.0 –3.6 –7.7 132.2 –8.9 –8.3 1.6 –8.9 –9.7 –5.4 0.2 –9.0 –1.6 –3.0 –10.1 –16.2 –17.0 –5.0 5.2 3.8 13.6 4.1 –6.0 –6.9 –6.4 –10.6 –0.8 –8.0 –16.6 –4.8 16 13 23 12 17 9 7 15 25 1 29 27 6 28 31 20 8 30 11 14 32 34 36 19 3 5 2 4 21 24 22 33 10 26 35 18 19801990 1.0 0.1 6.9 3.0 7.6 3.0 4.7 1.5 1.5 0.7 9.7 0.9 0.3 2.6 –3.1 6.6 0.3 3.0 0.2 4.4 10.6 3.2 13.2 9.0 0.8 1.1 8.7 0.8 0.0 –2.5 4.9 2.0 4.5 0.3 2.6 5.4 19902000 8.6 0.5 3.8 4.6 –0.2 2.8 7.2 4.5 10.0 5.4 0.6 6.4 4.6 –2.1 –8.6 16.6 4.7 5.6 0.7 3.8 5.8 7.8 4.3 5.8 4.5 2.5 13.3 6.8 0.7 –0.3 4.0 1.0 4.7 1.7 2.1 5.3 Spatial proximity index 1980-2000 Percent change Rank 9.8 0.5 11.0 7.7 7.4 5.9 12.3 6.0 11.6 6.1 10.3 7.4 4.9 0.4 –11.5 24.3 5.1 8.8 0.9 8.3 17.0 11.2 18.1 15.4 5.3 3.6 23.1 7.6 0.7 –2.9 9.1 3.0 9.4 2.0 4.8 11.0 12 33 9 17 19 23 6 22 7 21 11 20 26 34 36 1 25 15 31 16 4 8 3 5 24 28 2 18 32 35 14 29 13 30 27 10 Rank of change ranks averaged
Atlanta, GA MSA . . . . . . . . Baltimore, MD PMSA . . . . . Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA. Boston, MA-NH PMSA . . . . Chicago, IL PMSA . . . . . . .
2 22 26 15 28 21 7 24 19 3 33 27 10 31 34 12 8 9 16 29 30 18 14 25 20 3 1 10 32 36 12 23 6 17 35 5
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dallas, TX PMSA . . . . . . . . . Denver, CO PMSA. . . . . . . . Detroit, MI PMSA . . . . . . . . . Fort Lauderdale, FL PMSA. . Hartford, CT MSA . . . . . . Houston, TX PMSA . . . . . Kansas City, MO-KS MSA Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . Miami, FL PMSA . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .
Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000 91
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA . . . . . . . . . . Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA . New Orleans, LA MSA . . . . New York, NY PMSA . . . . . Newark, NJ PMSA . . . . . . . Oakland, CA PMSA . . . . . . Orange County, CA PMSA . Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA . . . Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA . . . . . . . . Providence-Fall RiverWarwick, RI-MA MSA . . . Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . St. Louis, MO-IL MSA . . . San Antonio, TX MSA . . . San Diego, CA MSA . . . . San Francisco, CA PMSA San Jose, CA PMSA . . . . Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Washington, DC-MD-VAWV PMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Note: Includes 36 Metropolitan Areas with 3 percent or 20,000 or more Hispanics or Latinos and 1,000,000 or more total population in 1980. Higher values indicate more segregation; the reference group is White non-Hispanic. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, and 2000 Summary File 1.